There are also risks to this technology becoming cheaper. Genomes for lethal viruses are available for free online. Here are some smallpox strains: http://www.poxvirus.org/viruses.asp?taxnode_id=1027 Here's Zaire Ebolavirus: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/EU224440.1?ordinalpos=1&...

The technology to get from a genome to a virus is expensive today, but it's getting cheaper quickly. If costs continue to decrease, bioweapons will be affordable to individuals instead of only nations.

Is there a mean to combat the threat of biological warfare since we cannot stop the proliferation of this technology?

Perhaps, people will starts to inject themselves all manners of viruses and bacterias designed to combat totally unknown threats?

I'd bet good money that biotech is similar to the majority of technologies: offense beats defense. A thousand things have to work just right for a human being to stay alive. Only one thing needs to go wrong for them to die.

This is really fascinating. My wife works doing "biotech" research in the university (she's looking for something new, though, if anyone's got any leads), and I would really not have thought this sort of thing possible, given all the requirements for fancy, expensive equipment. Also, as much as we shouldn't give in to paranoia, there are some safety risks involved that are much more significant than 'bad posture' that might afflict a programmer sitting in a chair too much.

More than anything, I'm constantly amazed at just how low capital requirements are in the programming field. You can do innovative stuff with just an ordinary computer. How cool is that?

The most expensive equipment is needed for flexibility and for general research, for narrowly focused problems you need much less, and less capable, equipment.

This is great. Reminds me of the recent article in nature questioning whether or not scientists need a PhD: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7285/full/464007a...

I really don't think scientists need a PhD but it probably helps a great deal when doing independent research

Seconded, you need a PhD to get funding. Actually the chief purpose of PhD(or any other type of degree) now (in my views, anyway) is just to put you on the map. So you can prove to people that you can do what you already did. Gone are the days when people actually did a PhD or degree courses to learn something new. Most of the times, specially in undergraduate studies, people could as well study on there own and just pay the fees to enjoy the university culture.

I'd like to see someone become a CSO at a funded and successful biotech without a PhD.

I'm very interested in setting up a small workspace myself and playing around, but being a resident alien in the US I think I'll encounter the "guys in bio-hazard suits appearing with guns drawn" phenomenon sooner or later.

Carlson's post that the link quotes is here http://www.synthesis.cc/2010/03/garage-biology-in-silicon-va...

"In five to ten years that amount should pay for much larger constructs, perhaps a brand-new viral or microbial genome."

I first read that as "brand new viral or microbioal game". Now there is something to think about, programming biological games with genes ("spread the flu" doesn't count).

For anyone in the NYC area, Rob Carlson will be speaking at NYCR this Saturday (Mar 13).

http://www.nycresistor.com/2010/03/10/reminder-bioengineerin...

Because of the ignorant, media-fueled misuse of "hacker", I have begun using the older term "tinker" again. As did Ed Felten for his well-established blog http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ .